February 10, 2007

Discussed in an update to an old post you might miss if I didn't write a new post to point it out.

CLARIFICATION: I didn't invent the term "Althouse Derangement Syndrome." I found it in the comments section at little Scott's blog. If you want the sordid details, follow the link. And search the comments to find the really mean thing I said that is sure to send ADS sufferers into a frenzy of keyboarding.

Ann is pro-choice and sympathetic to gays. Is that characteristic of conservative Republicans? Hard to say. I know there's a conservative Republican in Paris, made out of a platinum-iridium alloy, which serves as an international standard. But I haven't yet had a chance to abduct Ann, whisk her away to Paris, and compare the two.

Ann, to conceal your conservative Republicanism by the naïve device of not actually being one is the most perfidious deceit of all. It is also very self-centered. Be fair: The only reason your critics look like idiots, aside from the misdirected animosity, the excess of emotion, and in some cases a surreal lack of taste, is that they're saying things that obviously aren't true. And whose fault is it that you're not a conservative Republican? Yours. You could very easily prevent ASX from looking like a moron; how heartless of you not to do him that small kindness.

But that's just the kind of heartlessness conservative Republicans are known for. Never mind if they give more to charity; that obviously means they're just compensating. Liberals are too good to settle for cheap, easy imitations of generosity like... doing generous things. All that costs is time and money. You need true greatness of spirit to vote for people like Walter Mondale.

Professor A paddles around in the Lefty pond that is Madison. It's small and predictable.

I used to go kayaking on a pond in Concord that's small and predictable. I know every inch of the damn thing, and it's long since been more irritation than enjoyment. I enjoy kayaking, but I need a change of venue. I suspect Professor A's unwillingness to enthuse over every leftoid cause or candidate d'jour may stem from the same contempt of familiarity.

My wife is from the environs of Berkeley, and, although remaining liberal, her experiences growing up left her with a healthy skepticism tinged with humor about trendy leftish politics.

So, to me, Ann Althouse's outlook is perfectly understandable and rather sympathetic.

Theo Boehm said... .My wife is from the environs of Berkeley, and, although remaining liberal, her experiences growing up left her with a healthy skepticism tinged with humor about trendy leftish politics.

LOL,

that of course is another explanation at the personal level. To anyone in Madison, Ann appears to the right of Che, that makes her a conservative there.

As for the remote monitoring over the internet, I still hold to the apostasy theory.

This is all a little wierd. I don't understand why Ann is relinking to an old post where she was originally wrong (re: Pelosi, see Sergeantatarms letter) and then even more wrong in the update (defering to the "military jet" symantics was a red-herring). Then of course she is incredibly crude and this is taken by her and most of the commenters here as proof that liberals are mean and out of it?

You guys honestly scare me. There is certainly plenty of bad faith and low-level group think on both sides to go around, but this level of real derangement is the kind of stuff that demogogues and authoritarians thrive on.

There is a lot of talk about hatred towards Bush or reactionism, but it's time some folks took a look in the mirror. Hatred towards liberals is ten times more powerful and defines ten times as many elections in this country than the other way around. It's such a goddamned easy negative-platform that it's given Republicans a blank check to screw our country over.

Do you consider yourself conservative? If yes, let me ask you: Do you consider Bush or the last Congress to be/have been conservative?

Thanks, Victoria. "Republicans are used to newcomers.This is probably because as everybody knows, many young people are liberal in their youth..."

That's a good point. I don't think of myself as a Republican, but Democrats have made it so obvious to me that they can't accept me. But I'm not mad about it. Nearly everyone I know is a Democrat, and I'm used to how they think. Moreover, I'm past the point where I care if a group accepts me. And as this post shows, I'm amused at my strange power to upset people.

Aw, poor Rossy is upset by my sense of humor that has sexual content. Hey, look at this, it's so horrifyingly lewd: d

I voted Dem while I lived in the South; years of life in Philadelphia and NYC have moved me to the center-right. Exposure to unthinking kneejerk liberalism has counterbalanced the years of kneejerk conservatism that I grew up hating.

I like Ann's blog because she threads a middle path that I don't always agree with but which I can respect. I feel the lefty wrath directed against her is for her break with bien pensant thinking on certain topics. She's certainly open to having her views challenged if the commenter is at least polite- a far cry from from the closed minds on both ends of the political spectrum.

For six years Bush has been the conservatives' second cumming, and everything has been conservative, but with the war going abysmally, the rats flea the sinking ship and try to convince everyone that Bush is a Democrat.

RealityCheck - which would you consider to be the more conservative Bush-driven measure, the massive increase in Federal entitlement spending embodied in the prescription drug benefit, or the massive increase in illegitimate Federal interference in a traditionally state-controlled area embodied in No Child Left Behind?

To be fair, I suppose that Bush has not just cut taxes, he has also appointed some very fine judges, and two excellent members of the Supreme Court - but it should be pointed out that in the latter case, he made his record greater than 50/50 only when he faced a massive rebellion over a spectacularly incompetant nominee that forced his hand. Sam Alito is a fine Justice (not a perfect one to be sure, as he showed in Zedner and Gonzales-Lopez), but Bush gets no credit for his nomination.

You championed him, you voted for him, you defended him and his incompetency, his cronyism, his corruption, and his illegal war and now there is no way you are going to walk away from taking responsibility for him.

Once again, you do not get to post-facto set the rules of who is a pure enough conservative for you.

If you dislike his actions instead of disavowing him, you may want to consider your own personal culpability in his trashing of this country.

"It's good to see guys agree Republicans are anti-gay and anti-choice authoritarians."

Heh. Poor effort, even for a marginal specimen like you.

I said "conservative Republican". That's because I was kicking some poor dumb kid who called Ann one. Now, if we agree that words in English have customary meanings, we can conclude that when we call somebody a "conservative Republican" that's usually meant to suggest that he's a) conservative, and b) Republican. I hope I'm not going too fast for you here?

So, OK, the Republican party is a political party in the United States. People belong to it, or they don't. I happen to belong to it. That's what's usually meant by a "Republican": Somebody who belongs to, or at least has an emotional investment in, the Republican Party. I'm pro-choice and gays don't bug me a bit. For that reason, I usually consider myself a centrist Republican, or a libertarian-leaning Republican, or some such thing.

Conservative Republicans are far more likely to believe that it's wrong to kill unborn children, for example. They're also very frequently a lot less blasé about the gay thing. There are exceptions, lots of 'em; there always are. Those two issues don't define conservatism.

None of the above has anything whatsoever to do with "authoritarianism", obviously. The belief that human life begins at conception is slightly less preposterous than the belief that it begins at birth, and you'd have to be psychotic or mentally retarded to believe that opposition to killing people is "authoritarian". In fairness, I'm willing to allow that you might be both.

None of this stuff amounts to a belief that the government should control the media and dictate political content, for example. That's a view associated with people called "liberal Democrats", who generally favor considerable government interference pretty much everything except whether you have an abortion, and whether you marry somebody with chromosomes like your own. Nor do Republicans of any stripe tend to think that responsible, law-abiding citizens should be disarmed. That's another intensely authoritarian view liberal Democrats tend to cling to. Don't ask me why. They just like to have the government run everything. They think government can't make any mistakes. Again, though, they're not uniform. I know generally quite liberal people who nevertheless favor keeping the Bill of Rights intact, including the first and second amendments.

Lastly, lots of conservatives have been bitching about Bush's conservative credentials, particularly his dubious fiscal conservatism, since before he was elected. There's been constant complaint all along about his unwillingness to veto anything. But you're too incurious, and far too stupid, to bother getting the facts before you start squealing.

Drill SGT: Good to run into another UC alum! I won't ask the exact years you were there out of an increasing delicacy on my part about age. If you were to volunteer the information I would be grateful, but I won't press you ;-)

I am also a UC alum, but I'll spare you the details, lest we get too off-topic. I will say we probably missed each other by a few years. Anyway, I was mostly hanging around the Buddhists on North Side, and avoided all the fun down on Telegraph Ave.

My wife was in the latter days of the thick of it, UC-wise, graduating in '73. She was admitted at age 16, but, growing up as she did on the streets of Berkeley, she was more ready for the experience than any prep school could have made her. She went directly from Berkeley to the Sorbonne, and so became a connoisseuse of riot. The streets of Paris were a graduate fellowship in direct action by the Left to her provincial but adequate preparatory work at Berkeley.

With apologies to Professor A, I'm sorry to say that when my wife has had occasion to visit Madison, she's found Lefty politics there grim, glum and small-potatoes compared to the real thing.

That's why we'll always have Paris.

And so, to return to the Althouse Derangement Syndrome: It seems mostly to be a manifestation of grim, glum and small-potato thinking. The Internet Left is not physically in Madison but they seem spiritually to be.

I submit that the grim, glum, small-minded, crude, other-directed, apostasy-inquisiting members of the Left who infest the Internet ought to, as the expression has it, get a life.

RealityCheck - here's a reality check for you. Elections? They're about picking the lesser evil. I didn't support Bush in the primaries, and subsequently, your party put up people who would have been far more catastrophically ruinous to this country than Bush could ever have been. I don't have to defend his record, and have in fact frequently been highly critical of his record. But is he better than the alternatives? You betcha.

My undergrad degree was from UCD,but I had a number of classes at UCB. 67-69 with a sabbatical to VN, then 72-74. started in Chem E and finished in econometrics

My MBA was from UCI (13 classes) with 10 at UCLA. I went 6 straight quarters (Army was paying). picked up 4 UCLA classes the first Summer, 2 the next Spring and 4 the second Summer. 78-79

So Yes, I was around when the Filmore and Avalon and Winterland were open. I know who Mario Salvio was, th Free Speech Movement (what a joke) and know what a sad piece of real estate "People's Park" was.

So Yes, I was around when the Filmore and Avalon and Winterland were open. I know who Mario Salvio was, th Free Speech Movement (what a joke) and know what a sad piece of real estate "People's Park" was.

Another brownshirt who couldn't get the hippie chicks to put out for him.

Wow, SGT, you managed to make it around to more UC campuses than I did! You and I were at UCB during one year of your '72-'74 stint. I was mostly hiding out in the Music Library though.

The Filmore! I just deleted a paragraph of Filmore reminiscence, because it has absolutely nothing to do with people going cukoo about Althouse. I just can't think of any way to work it in. Thanks for the places and dates, though. Reminds me of home.

And so, to return to the Althouse Derangement Syndrome: It seems mostly to be a manifestation of grim, glum and small-potato thinking. The Internet Left is not physically in Madison but they seem spiritually to be.

Get real Theo. The city of Madison cannot be responsible for anything Ann writes. I've lived here longer than Ann, and I doubt you really know what you're talking about. If it's so bad, why not move? She tweaks liberals, they tweak back. I guess when they tweak back, name a derangement syndrome after yourself. No narcissism there.

If Democrats think that they can win the next election by writing off all the swing voters who voted for Bush on 2000 and 2004, well, good luck with that. They can always watch reruns of the West Wing if they want to see a Democrat in the White House.

Conservative? Liberal? Those are pretty useless labels any more. What matters to me is how partisan a blogger is. The less partisan, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

2. She has wonderful friends in Madison that obviously see someone totally different than the person who writes this blog.

3. She claims to be independent, but writes and reasons like Fox News or the Washington Times.

4. She has (or at least had) artistic talent.

5. She is truly an idiot sometimes, but is well-respected in her field. Michael Froomkin and Eric Muller both tend to respect her even though I am sure they have gasped in horrer sometimes at some of her posts.

6. Brian Leiter hates her and Glenn Reynolds loves her and she still calls herself independent.

7. She has no sex life or at least doesn't share any hint of one with her readers even though she seems to share everything else.

8. She can never, ever admit a mistake and is so callous as to defend the killing of an innocent Britain (who did not wear a down coat and did not jump a turnstile) or the torture of Jose Padilla.

What a wonderful train wreck is what I always think when I come to this blog.

"We live in a time when moderates are treated worse than extremists, being punished as if they were more fanatical than the actual fanatics."

"We live in a time when lies are preferred to the truth and truths are called lies, when opponents are assumed to have the worst conceivable motives and treated accordingly, and when we reach immediately for coercion without even bothering to find out what those who disagree with us are actually saying."

Peter Palladas said... Statistical analysis reveals that there is a positive correlation between masculine critical posts of Prof. Alt. and a clear, if sublimated, desire for sexual union with the woman.

and then comes Elliot ....

7. She has no sex life or at least doesn't share any hint of one with her readers even though she seems to share everything else.

The Left-leaning political environment at Madison is responsible for what Althouse writes only to the extent that she reacts to it. My sense is that her political views are well internalized, and no amount of crude external pressure would change them. But of course she lives and works in a certain political atmosphere, so she is bound to react to that atmosphere in her writing and comment. Althouse herself has said something like this. I'm sorry, it's late, and I don't have time to research the link, but I distinctly remember reading her on this subject.

And of course I don't live in Madison. A bit of poking around would reveal that I live in Boston, so I'm not quite sure what you're driving at with the "why not move?" remark, or the rest of the paragraph, for that matter.

I was trying to have a little fun at UW Madison's expense, comparing it to more sophisticated places, and reflecting back that lack of sophistication on Althouse's Lefty Internet critics. Sorry if that caused offense, but if it did, it proves some other of my Madison informant's points as well.

Perhaps "humorless" and "easily offended" could be included here somewhere.

Ruth Anne: Thanks for the reminder! You know, I could never feature Althouse living in Berkeley. Her critics often say she's crazy, but to me, she's always been a model of sanity and good sense. You can depend on it, though, if she lived in Berkeley, she's be really crazy. She might do well in a nice house in the Oakland/Berkeley hills, maybe near Montclair Village. I can see her zipping around those hills in her Audi on the way to campus. But living in the flatlands of Berkeley? Horrors!

How many cold-hearted bitches do you know who voted for Jesse Jackson and John Edwards? If she had a daddy complex, wouldn't she have gone for older, whiter, sterner candidates? Like Kerry instead of Bush??? Like Bush 41 instead of Clinton??? Like Dole instead of Clinton??? How do you square her vote for Russ "Mommy" Feingold?

If anything, Althouse wants a Mommy with a pair: someone who can put on an apron and bake cookies for domestic policy, but won't abandon our allies in a way that will destroy America's credibility for the next 50 years, which is exactly what leftists want (they want America alienated, defeated and mistrusted).

(I thought it was better to start talking literally than to extend the metaphor)

Here's a diagnosis for you: you're an ignorant jackass. Why do people think dashing off a quick psychoanalysis makes their comment seem smarter?

3. She claims to be independent, but writes and reasons like Fox News or the Washington Times.

Except that Ann hasn't written for the Washington Times or Fox News, as far as I can tell, but she has written for the NYT and appeared very recently on public radio.

6. Brian Leiter hates her and Glenn Reynolds loves her and she still calls herself independent.

There are a lot more people loved by Glenn & hated by Brian than vice versa, because Brian Leiter is a disagreeable prick and Glenn Reynolds is a friendly guy.

8. She can never, ever admit a mistake and is so callous as to defend the killing of an innocent Britain (who did not wear a down coat and did not jump a turnstile) or the torture of Jose Padilla.

Unlike callous lefties who don't give a damn about the victims of suicide bombings or mortar attacks but have infinite compassion for the victims of law enforcement officers, without making distinctions between tragic accidents and successfully terrorist takedowns (like Padilla).

Thanks, Ruth Anne. Ruth Anne is the Althouse Blog Historian, you know. Clicking on that link makes me wish I could podcast like it was 2005. #21 looks really interesting. But those were dangerous times in the blogosphere, back when LGF and Atrios were attacking me at the same time. These days it's just the pathetic little man, Scott, sometimes mistaken for the icon "d." Can't get much traction on attacks like that. Consequently, I don't have the podcasty fire I once had. Not that I'm looking for more trouble.

I didn't invent the name. I found it over on little Scott's blog. One of their own readers told icon d that he/she/it had it. They have some rant about me every other day over there, usually amounting to nothing. A typical Lawyers, Guns, and Money blog post is to quote something I wrote and then go on about how stupid and evil I am. If that's not ADS, what do you want to call it? They obviously have a thing specifically about me.

...which makes me realise that there is in fact - I never dreamt it possible - one, and just the one, facet of T. Blair's life that I admire and hold in high regard: not once in all the time that he has been sh1tting on our country has he ever referred to his sex life - public or private.

Why is it only female bloggers that attract this kind of cracked-out commenters? It's like the Internet Males decided to leave WoW and toddle around the blogging world for a while to see if there was a way to level up.

[I found it over on little Scott's blog. One of their own readers told icon d that he/she/it had it. They have some rant about me every other day over there, usually amounting to nothing. A typical Lawyers, Guns, and Money blog post is to quote something I wrote and then go on about how stupid and evil I am. If that's not ADS, what do you want to call it? They obviously have a thing specifically about me.]

I'm shocked after all this you don't just admit the errors in your original post and move on. And you continue to attack "little Scott". And then react by name calling when people point this out. Silly.

Okay, I have a full blown case of ADS. She has called me a lunatic and some other names I can't recall. All because I challenged her annoying habit of phrasing things in such a way that they can be read as extremely ignorant and outrageous statements but then again have enough "plausible deniabilty" in them that she can come back and say "I never said that."

Reference the recent polar bears on the ice picture post. When I questioned what the hell her point was, she called me a lunatic and said "she didn't deny" the existence of global warming (but of course never said she accepted the theory either). She has done the same thing time and time again. Say something ridiculous and claim, "I never said that, or that wasn't what I meant" (but never apologize).

It is also why I have VDS (Volokh Derangement Syndrome) and especially RDS (Reynolds Derangement Syndrome). Don't ever call them conservatives and they Glenn Reynolds would never advocate genocide, but heh, sometimes shit happens.

Why is it only female bloggers that attract this kind of cracked-out commenters?

Oh that's not fair. LGF, Redstate, and Instapundit would get the same "cracked out" commentors if they didn't ban people at the first hint of dissent (or if Instaidiot allowed comments at all). And go on over to Volokh when some of the nuttier ones (e.g. Dave Kopel) post over there. They get savaged pretty good too.

Professor A: You're welcome. I feel like I have to keep earning the title you so graciously conferred upon me. I must have the brain for it. I will google search one word or phrase and "Althouse" and it goes right to what I was recalling. Then I look at it and ask myself, "was that really two years ago?" and feel like I've been hanging around here forever.

FDS - Freder Derangement Syndrome. Actually, though Ann suggests that he is deranged, it isn't the same - people don't start frothing at the mouth at everything he says, like they do for Ann Althouse and George W. Bush.

To follow-up Victoria's great summary of "liberal fundamentalism" above, there's also the issue of "liberal infallibility." To them, it's absolutely impossible for one of their own not only to be be wrong, but to even do wrong.

Whenever a lefty gets busted doing something stupid or illegal, a massive horde swarm of commenters spreads out across the net, loudly and repeatedly posting the same talking points about this is all a Right Wing Smear Job and how we're misunderstanding the fundamental issues, etc. If they get caught with something undeniable, like the whatshisface congressman who had bribe money stashed in his freezer, they break out the deadly tu quoque: "but you rethuglicans do it toooooo!"

I'd like one lefty, any lefty, to admit that someone in their crazy clan is a bad person. And no, Joe Lieberman doesn't count just because he's a filthy apostate.

If they get caught with something undeniable, like the whatshisface congressman who had bribe money stashed in his freezer, they break out the deadly tu quoque: "but you rethuglicans do it toooooo!"

Come on, prove it. Who defended William Jefferson--the congressman in question (and mine, much to my shame). His committee assignments were pulled and he did not get the positions he was entitled to when the Democrats took over. The way he one this time around was because the his opponent in the run off ticked off the Republican sheriff of Jefferson Parish and he threw his support (although not formal endorsement) behind Jefferson.

He is a very bad person. I most certainly hope he ends up in jail. Remember it was the Republican Congress (and Hastert) that rallied behind him when his offices were searched--and probably the reason he has not been indicted yet.

I've kind of got to agree (grudgingly) with Freder on Jefferson - after the last couple of Congresses, it's pretty hard as a Republican to criticize anyone's handling of corruption without alsopointing out what a piss-poor job our own team did of it. I'm losing no sleep over losing the House of Representatives after what Hastert and DeLay did with it.

Reference the recent polar bears on the ice picture post. When I questioned what the hell her point was, she called me a lunatic and said "she didn't deny" the existence of global warming (but of course never said she accepted the theory either). She has done the same thing time and time again. Say something ridiculous and claim, "I never said that, or that wasn't what I meant" (but never apologize).

The image was intended to elicit an emotional response at the idea of polar bears floating away to their deaths. That there were two, together, conjured ideas about romantic love and doomed couples in general. Romeo and Juliet, on ice.

But polar bears can swim.

So the image was misleading. In other words, it was bullshit.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing bullshit like that. Nobody has to take a Global Warming Loyalty Oath for the privilege of calling you on your bullshit.

Well no, that is what I thought Ann was getting at, but when I asked her to clarify her point she called me a lunatic and claimed she never meant to imply such a thing. She wasn't commenting about global warming (she doesn't deny the existence of global warming after all) or the dishonesty of global warming advocates at all, she was just commenting on the emotional impact of the photograph. Only a "lunatic" like me could assume she was commenting on the politics or climate. The picture should have just included a caption that said "these polar bears did not really starve to death because of global warming".

I don't know how you can read these things into her postings. She would never do such a thing. You must be as much of a lunatic as me.

Well no, that is what I thought Ann was getting at, but when I asked her to clarify her point she called me a lunatic and claimed she never meant to imply such a thing.

Bullshit, Freder. Let's review. Ann wrote in her post--before you even started commenting--this:

And, no, I'm not denying that there's global warming, even as I sit here a double pane of glass away from minus 12° air. I'm just amused at human behavior, such as the way it is possible to feel arguments at us. In particular, we are susceptible to argument by animal. We love the animal, if it's pictured right, in a way that pulls our heartstrings.

(emphasis mine)

And then, after you accuse her of having a secret Polar Bear Holocaust Denialist Agenda, she wrote:

Freder: My point is obviously about the use of emotional argument through photography. I say nothing about the actual scientific research other than that I'm not talking about it.

So you said:

Of course not, Ann Althouse never talks about actual scientific research. She merely posts a picture that accompanies an article and report on global warming and implies (but doesn't outright state) that it is deceptive. Ask a question--"How many people think the poor wittle fuzzy bears are stuck?"--and follow it up with a science fact--"these ruthless killing machines can swim fifteen miles and rip your throat out"--and you can get away with anything.

You complained that Ann wasn't addressing the science, but was narrowly focused on debunking the image with "a science fact."

Ann was consistent the entire time that she was merely debunking a single image, and exploring how emotionalism finds its way into our political arguments.

===

What you seem to have trouble with is the idea that Ann was merely knocking down a single image, and not secretly targeting Global Warming as a whole. Disagreeing with any evidence or argument for global warming equals Heresy! Even if she did have serious doubts about global warming, that's not a crime. That wouldn't make it illegitimate to dispute the legitimacy of the polar bear photo.

Reasonable, responsible adults can compartmentalize when they discuss complicated issues. It's possible to analyze individual pieces of evidence by themselves, and possibly even reject them, without accepting or rejecting the larger issues. She expressed interest in discussing how peoples' emotions are manipulated, not in using the photo to bash warmenizers.

She wanted to talk about how we feel about bears (awww), and all you can see is an evil bitch dominatrix relentlessly cramming the rightwing agenda down our throats with secret messages that we're too stupid to decode but we buy into completely. That's not sane, Freder. Go get your tinfoil dunce cap.

Not to beat this to death, but to set things straight RE Naked Lunch's comment far above:

Naked Lunch said...

Get real Theo. The city of Madison cannot be responsible for anything Ann writes. I've lived here longer than Ann, and I doubt you really know what you're talking about. If it's so bad, why not move? She tweaks liberals, they tweak back. I guess when they tweak back, name a derangement syndrome after yourself. No narcissism there.

It was unclear to me where NL stopped addressing me and started talking to Althouse. The "why not move?" question could go either way, assuming NL thought I was in Madison, so I responded accordingly. Upon re-reading, it's obvious he was really talking to/about Althouse. Geez! We don't need word verification here. We need having passed English 1a verification.

Anyway, thanks again to Ruth Anne. I completely forgot about the Berkeley House Whore thing. It's pretty funny, actually, having encountered such types in person all those years ago.

On second thought, perhaps I'm less amused. The reality was distinctly more creepy than funny. Having a high regard for Althouse, if I think of her in Berkeley, it would be as I suggested above, living in a nice house in the hills (preferably with a view of the Bay), and zipping in her Audi along the twisty roads to campus. Basically a transfer of what we know of her Madison lifestyle to a very pleasant spot on the Left Coast. She'd fit right in.

While we're talking about the varieties of Althouse Fascination Syndrome, I suppose I should explain my own case.

I was surfing blogs several years ago, and there was a woman who looked like my wife. I went in and found that she not only looked like my wife, but seemed to have similar political views. Hmmm....

I continued to read the blog, and found Althouse's take on politics and law were somewhere between mine and my wife's (My wife has had legal training, so she has informed opinions, unlike my own prejudices.). Althouse's views have been different enough, however, to provoke thought, which is something I actually enjoy. No one wants to be screamed at in blog comments, but the Internet is fantastic because of all the ideas and opinions right in front of you. At their best, Althouse commenters are an extraordinary group, and I've read some remarkable exchanges and debates here.

Now I'm certainly not hung up on Althouse in an unhealthy way. She presents an attractive persona, but it's a way of getting attention, and why not? If you can turn a nice face to the public, and you're interested in having some influence, that's half the battle, isn't it? Especially if you are a woman, a portion of creeps and nutcases will appear, but, sadly, that goes with exposure. Nothing astounding there. Althouse balances all this, in my opinion, nearly perfectly.

My wife, however, is distinctly not amused. I was working in the basement one evening listening to an Althouse podcast on my laptop, when my wife came down the stairs with a puzzled look. "You're listening to me? That's me? I never said that! Who is that?" Althouse's voice sounds just like my wife's except for Althouse's mid-Atlantic Pennsylvania/Delaware accent. I said, "That's Ann Althouse. Want to see a video of her?" There was something from YouTube handy on the blog. When Althouse's face came on, my wife's stare turned from icy to horrified. "She looks like me! She sounds like me! She's the more successful version of me!" Indeed, from all appearances, Althouse and my wife could be sisters.

Since then, the green-eyed monster has lurked around my blog activities. The surest way for me to ruin dinner is to unthinkingly say, "Oh, I read something on Althouse today...." We try to have lively family dinners with lots of talk and discussion, but this blog is distinctly a taboo subject.

So, while I regard Althouse as an interesting, stylish, intelligent person, my wife regards her with suspicion tinged with jealousy. I suppose this proves you can't please everybody, even those who agree with you.

As for those who don't, just look at the crap in previous comments on this thread.

Disagreeing with any evidence or argument for global warming equals Heresy! Even if she did have serious doubts about global warming, that's not a crime. That wouldn't make it illegitimate to dispute the legitimacy of the polar bear photo.

Well see, here you are doing exactly what you and Ann are accusing me of doing. Refusing to comparmentalize. I wasn't criticizing Ann for her opinions about global warming (I distinctly pointed out that she didn't deny global warming). In fact I wasn't interested in arguing with Ann about global warming at all. (True, the rest of the thread turn into a debate about the validity of scientific theories).

This post in particular was merely illustrative of what Ann is so good at doing. Making a point about something without actually stating an opinion on it by positing questions and pondering things and throwing in a couple facts. But then if someone calls her on it and says "Hey, you think global warming is bullshit." She can say "I never said that." Which of course is 100% correct.

Of course if someone says "Hey, you said global warming is a well supported and valid scientific theory." She can also say "I never said that". Which is also 100% correct. Even if someone says "Ann said I don't know what the hell I'm talking about when it comes to global warming." Ann can still retort "I never said that."

And now she can criticize other people for sexualizing Anna Nicole even though she has had umpteen posts over the past couple days on her. But of course she will say, "I never criticized them".

So she can be all things to all people.

And I have the same problem with Reynolds and Volokh. They are constantly doing the same thing. Phrasing things in such a way as to make it sound as though they are advocating policies but allowing themselves wiggle room to deny they ever meant such a thing. The worst example is Reynolds reluctant but regrettable endorsement (or rather "I'm not endorsing this but if we don't fight them now, they won't give up and if five or ten years we'll have to exterminate them) of genocide.

No, Fredder, it is not dishonest. What you're seeing and describing is the Socratic method. It's a well-known mode of discourse used in teaching. It's a classic way of provoking thought. And of course it got Socrates in trouble for almost the same reasons you're complaining of here.

Can someone explain how Nancy Pelosi has the nerve to tell a group of veterans that her desire to avoid having her plane stop to refuel is all about security?

And here's what she says at the bottom:

I was disgusted by the claim that the preference not to have to refuel was characterized as a security matter

Goalposts did not move. She raised a simple point, and you wanted to discuss a much larger set of issues (the scandal as a whole). Just like in the polar bear post, you want to talk about global warming as a whole.

Ann didn't even state positions on either of those (whether she thought Pelosi was on balance in the wrong, and whether or not global warming is real). You just inferred them, and started arguing against these imagined positions, and then you rage at her for not getting sucked into your sideshow.

And for fuck's sake, Ann pulled this story out of the L.A. Times. The most liberal major newspaper on the West Coast if not the entire country. That doesn't stop you from saying she gets her marching orders from the Moonie Times and Faux News.

You care more about the source of a story than its substance. You care more about the alignment of a question than its obvious answer. That's some herd mentality bullshit right there.

First of all, it's evident that the Socratic method is in the eye of the beholder. It was in Socrates' day, too.

Secondly, it's also evident that Freder/reality check are possessed of an idée fixe, and no amount of discussion will dissuade them from the automatic generation of "sorry, wrong..." or "that's crap," etc, etc., no matter what the example.

The idée fixe is that Althouse should admit error and atone. We call it Reconciliation these days in the Catholic Church, but I've never seen any hint that Althouse has the slightest need to confess her sins. Curiously, the Communists took over this Catholic practice in the 20th century. How many stories have we read from the days of Stalin and Mao about admission of error, re-education, etc., leading to rehabilitation? I'm a traditionalist in most things, so it's nice to see that the modern Left keeping to the old ways. I just don't think Althouse wants to be admitted to the Party, hard as that may be to accept.

Daryl and Trey, we're wasting perfectly good electrons here, and I'm sorry for it. I should have just told my slightly disjointed story about Althouse Fascination Syndrome and left it at that. But nooo, I had to try to engage this crew, and so did you. More's the pity.

You know, I have a bit of an AI background from college, and another thing has occurred to me. That is, the most formulaic and rigid commenters might not be actual "commenters" at all, but bots. Modern software for inserting comments in chat rooms is remarkably good, so why not here? Althouse doesn't see any obvious spam comments after having turned off word verification. It may be that bot-generated comment is just not that obvious. What I'm seeing, though, is that our "interlocutors" might fail a Turing Test. Perhaps we'll have more of a clue after the next round of obscenity-laden venom aimed our way.

What you're seeing and describing is the Socratic method. It's a well-known mode of discourse used in teaching.

As I understand it the Socratic method involves asking questions to force the students to think about the correct answer.

I didn't realize that calling people lunatics and pricks was part of the Socratic method. Or that denying that you ever made a statement you made was either (e.g., that hooding Padilla may have been necessary to stop him from blinking messages).

I love how she refuses to take responsibility for anything she says or links to. How she fawns over Glenn Reynolds and George Bush and then claims she isn't a conservative. How she gets bent all out of shape when people call her on her bullshit. Mostly I love how brilliant some of her commentors think she is.

No one here has suggested Althouse is any of those sorts of wicked. Well obnoxious perhaps.

Now, I didn't know there was a KKK site, but you not only know of it, but you find it wicked. I will assume that's definition 1 and not definition 2. But you don't engage them. That's cowardly and morally bankrupt of you.

Sheesh.

In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

OK, first the snarky comment: Reality, I have been a practicing psychotherapist since 1991, and I am amazed that you know my failures of morality and fortitude having never met me! WOW! You have talent! It takes me at least a couple of sessions before I think I am starting to learn about someone.

But, how do you know I am a coward and morally bankrupt if you do not know what I meant by wicked? I guess it is not for small minds such as mine to understand the ways of the great such as yourself.

OK, snarkiness off.

Yes I have been to their website, a client was saying that he wanted to join the KKK despite the fact that I knew he was not a racist and had several minority friends. I took him to the website to show him who the Klan were. He decided that they were not the group for him. Score Trey 1, Klan 0. For the record, I meant the word wicked in terms of definitions 1 and 4.

But I am not seeing the Klan making any headway RC. In fact, I would call them a dying (thankfully) institution, so I do not worry about them.

Me, I worry more about parents who severely abuse their children getting them back to abuse them some more. I fight that in terms of legislation I am working on getting passed as well as helping the children to recover and personally standing up against the abusers in court and DCS meetings. It is a good fight, one I am happy to wage. Not without some threats and peril, but good fights always contain some risk.

I am sure that you too wage war against evil and injustice face to face. Right?

But why come to a blog written by a person you do not respect? What is the attraction?

OK, first the snarky comment: Reality, I have been a practicing psychotherapist since 1991, and I am amazed that you know my failures of morality and fortitude having never met me! WOW! You have talent! It takes me at least a couple of sessions before I think I am starting to learn about someone.

Now Reality Check, surely you can have a little mud thrown back at you! You threw it well, stand there and get a little dirt on ya! Surely my pretentious jerk vibes were not so devastating that you can't answer a few questions. Let us recap: You said I was a coward and morally bankrupt. I made fun of you for stating that you knew me well enough to judge me without meeting me. I think you got the better licks in.

You are not some liberal that calls a person names and then runs away are you? Really, why do you frequent a blog whose author you loathe? Or am I mistaken? Please feel free to insult me, I can take it, but I am sincerely interested in your answer.

way too much. the idea is to slow down the althouse self amplifying echo chamber of lies as in the pelosi thread. to leave a trail of links so that someone that wants to think for themselves can find the documentation.

once a day some former reichtard sends me an email explaining how i have helped them open their own eyes. it's very gratifying.

now you've had your three minutes to trace this call copper. leave the bags or the puppy gets it.

Reality, how is what you said different from helping the lost centrists get back in the fold of the left?

My point is that you would be more persuasive if you were more civil. I think you are an intelligent person from your posts. It is my opinion that you have some flair as a writer as well. But your rhetoric, which is generally over the top (morally bankrupt coward etc,) demeans your ideas. The style over rides you substance, and your substance is your strength. You would get 5 emails a day.

Die hards like me are probably out of reach, but I appreciate a good argument that makes me think, and my ideas have been swayed by just that type of post here. I think you can do better by showing some respect to your readers and those with whom you disagree.

I think ADS is more accurately conceptualized as Althouse Dissing Syndrome. It is not that people misunderstand our hostess, it is that they can's stand her and are not interested in addressing her ideas. They are interested in finding things to criticize in an effort to discredit her.

Trouble is, too many people on the blog read it for her (and her posters') IDEAS. Snarky comments about gloves, or being Secret Squirrel Republican (or Karl Rove in Drag) or not Kos (Thanks be to God) are not on the radar of people who are interested in substance. Oh sure, it is fun to smack them down on occasion, but eventually you learn to skip past the names of the usual suspects.

Cause they have ADS and are just going to lamely criticize what they cannot produce.